Let's Talk About Obama's Politics

[xrayzebra]

Okay, let us talk about the great messiah, Barack Hussein
Obama. The man has been proven to be a liar as much as
Hillary has. He twist and turns when ask a question and
has no script to provide an answer. He hollers every time
some one ask a hard question. He is a liberal in no uncertain
terms. He has no record of reaching out to anyone of any
other persuasion. Yet he claims to be a man of change, what
change? More liberalism, more big government. I would
like all you supporters of Obama to read the following column
written by another black columnist, Ken Blackwell. I posted
another written by Dr. Thomas Sowell, another black columnist.
I post them because you cant really call them racist, since
blacks cant be considered racist, according to the Liberal
doctrine. Oh, you will call me one for pointing out that
Obama is not the great messiah as reported to be.



The Real Obama
By Ken Blackwell
Thursday, February 14, 2008

“[C]ivilizational war is real, even if political leaders and polite punditry must call it by another name.”
--Robert D. Kaplan in the December 2001 issue of the Atlantic Monthly

It’s an amazing time to be alive in America. We’re in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won’t truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won’t arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.

Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He’s not. He’s the next George McGovern. And it’s time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let’s look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial “beauty.”

Start with national security, since the president’s most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists — something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on “the rich.” How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, “All praise and glory to God!” but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have “hijacked” — hijacked — Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban — ban — on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don’t start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of “bringing America together” means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and — yes — they’re talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama’s radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It’s time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let’s first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.



Mr. Blackwell is Chairman of the Coalition for a Conservative Majority and a member of the Board of Directors of the Club for Growth.

Be the first to read Ken Blackwell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.


Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

[xrayzebra]

One other thing. Has anyone heard Obama ever say he was
proud of America? His wife did once. Well she said she was now,
after he started running for President. I cant recall a single time
he has ever praised the country.

[clambake]

how long have you known obama?

......and this just in......81% of americans polled say the country is in the toilet. they don't want another bushbot.

[xrayzebra]

how long have you known obama?

......and this just in......81% of americans polled say the country is in the toilet. they don't want another bushbot.

Strange you say that. Do you want a Liberal that is left
of Stalin as President.

Also, funny thing. The country went into the toilet right
after the country elected a dimm-o-crapic HR and Senate.
You know that bunch that was going to change everything.
Boy they sure have.

[AZLouis]

LOL.

Why does the term liberal scare people.

Color me shocked that a guy who chairs a conservative group who dislikes Obama's politics.

[clambake]

LOL.

Why does the term liberal scare people.

Color me shocked that a guy who chairs a conservative group who dislikes Obama's politics.
you don't understand the fear that exist inside old white men from texas.

[fyatuk]

how long have you known obama?

......and this just in......81% of americans polled say the country is in the toilet. they don't want another bushbot.

Not that that poll has anything to do with whether the majority of Americans would approve of Obama's politics.

No doubt there's a lot of problems with the country. Much of it has to do with people having trouble getting by on their paychecks, so how exactly is raising payroll and income taxes supposed to help? How is raising consumer costs supposed to help?

The bad thing is much of these problems could have been avoided. Early failures in Iraq rocked confidence in th government and lead to skyrocketing oil prices putting the pinch on us economically. Fed raising prime rates at too quick a rate contributed to the housing crunch which is seriously hurting the credit industry. Not letting the tax cuts expire has added to our debt weakening the dollar.

A lot of the problems are certainly attributable to the current administration, but that doesn't meaning accepting the complete opposite is the answer.

[xrayzebra]

you don't understand the fear that exist inside old white men from texas.

You should re-phrase that to say: "You don't understand
the fear I have of old white men from Texas. Because of
the truth they speak."

[clambake]

A lot of the problems are certainly attributable to the current administration, but that doesn't meaning accepting the complete opposite is the answer.
thats true.

when harm has been done, even a fool can see it
so is this.

[DarrinS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o

[ChumpDumper]

Why not just stick to his middle name and whether his wife said she's proud of her country like you just did.

[DarrinS]

It doesn't matter where he stands on issues -- he's a rock star.


His speeches are so inspirational, that Chris Mathews gets a thrill up his leg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhnynk6XkkU&feature=related

[spurster]

No doubt there's a lot of problems with the country. Much of it has to do with people having trouble getting by on their paychecks, so how exactly is raising payroll and income taxes supposed to help? How is raising consumer costs supposed to help?


I don't think any proposed payroll or tax increases are aimed at the people living paycheck to paycheck. I'm not sure what you mean by "raising consumer costs".



The bad thing is much of these problems could have been avoided. Early failures in Iraq rocked confidence in th government and lead to skyrocketing oil prices putting the pinch on us economically. Fed raising prime rates at too quick a rate contributed to the housing crunch which is seriously hurting the credit industry. Not letting the tax cuts expire has added to our debt weakening the dollar.


Skyrocketing oil prices were/are going to happen regardless of what we did/do in Iraq. I think the housing problems are due to predatory loans that people could not pay off because of stagnant wages and falling house prices. You were against tax increases, now you are for them; well at least the GOP will cast the expiring tax cuts as tax increases.



A lot of the problems are certainly attributable to the current administration, but that doesn't meaning accepting the complete opposite is the answer.

So we should vote for "keep it the same" McCain?

[clambake]

81% of americans say they're not very proud of their country.

i'm proud of ray for keeping the black fear alive.

[Kermit]

This Ken Blackwell?

uny-8v8PSJk

[fyatuk]

I don't think any proposed payroll or tax increases are aimed at the people living paycheck to paycheck. I'm not sure what you mean by "raising consumer costs".

Honestly, I haven't looked at Obama's policies. There's no way in hell I'd vote for him even if I agreed on every issue because I don't like him running for President 1/3rd through his first term in the Senate.

I haven't really seen much out of Obama to give those living paycheck to paycheck more of their own money, though, only taking more from business and wealthy and forcing the poorer to rely on government programs.

Backing out of free trade agreements will raise consumer costs, almost certainly. Raising minimum wage increases consumer costs, as well. Heck, increasing the cap on payroll taxes could increase consumer costs as well (not guaranteed though). Any increase in regulation of a lot of different industries will as well.


Skyrocketing oil prices were/are going to happen regardless of what we did/do in Iraq. I think the housing problems are due to predatory loans that people could not pay off because of stagnant wages and falling house prices. You were against tax increases, now you are for them; well at least the GOP will cast the expiring tax cuts as tax increases.

I didn't mean to imply they were the only causes, but where significant contributers. Oil prices have increased greatly due to effects from screwing up Iraq (and the threat the ensuing chaos has created to other oil producing countries), but they would still have gone up a significant amount even without that.

Predatory loans were a large part, but the Feds jacking up the prime rates increased the interest on adjustable rate mortgages. If they had kept the rates lower, and used a slower increase period (instead of .25% a month), the rate of failed mortgages would have been slower and we would not have been hit by them all at once. It could have been more of a controled drop instead of an outright collapse.

I didn't discuss my own opinion on taxes. I listed it because it's a way they could have limited debt increases and kept the dollar stronger, just like I listed taxes earlier as taking money out of people's pockets. Unlike some people I don't always talk only about my own beliefs. I bring up information germaine to the conversation whether I agree with it or not.


So we should vote for "keep it the same" McCain?

I didn't say that either. I just said you shouldn't vote for an "anti-Bush" just because you don't like the direction of the country. If you agree with Obama's policies and personality, vote for him.

Personally, I'm either voting for a third party candidate this year, or not at all (if there are no good third party candidates).

[xrayzebra]

81% of americans say they're not very proud of their country.

i'm proud of ray for keeping the black fear alive.

Leave it to spambake. Keeping black fear alive. Now
all of you see how just questioning a liberal, who is black,
brings on all the charges of racism.

And spambake, I am proud of America. We have the
greatest country in the world, bar none. One great little
item people like you like to overlook, look how well our
poor people live. Most own cars, TV's, have cell phones,
and many other conveniences that people of other countries could never afford. But I am sure you will find something wrong with that.

Funny thing, you are so busy wanting to make smart
remarks, but I still haven't see any of your remarks on
Obama's politics. Cat got you tongue.

[clambake]

what do you want me say, ray? that he's one of the 81% that agree?

I'm glad you like your car,TV,cell phone......is that it?

[BonnerDynasty]

you don't understand the fear that exist inside old white men from texas.


This country will be fucked when the old white men from Texas are gone.


One day Texas will be like Cali :depressed

[RandomGuy]

LOL.

Why does the term liberal scare people.

Color me shocked that a guy who chairs a conservative group dislikes Obama's politics.

:dramaquee

[fyatuk]

Nowall of you see how just questioning a liberal, who is black,brings on all the charges of racism.

A couple months ago I got called a racist because I said I didn't like him running in his first term as Senator. So yeah, don't criticize the golden child.

[Spuradicator]

Leave it to spambake. Keeping black fear alive. Now
all of you see how just questioning a liberal, who is black,
brings on all the charges of racism.

And spambake, I am proud of America. We have the
greatest country in the world, bar none. One great little
item people like you like to overlook, look how well our
poor people live. Most own cars, TV's, have cell phones,
and many other conveniences that people of other countries could never afford. But I am sure you will find something wrong with that.

Funny thing, you are so busy wanting to make smart
remarks, but I still haven't see any of your remarks on
Obama's politics. Cat got you tongue.


:tu

[RandomGuy]

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

Translation:

"Wah, the refs didn't call that shot the way I wanted them to, in order to favor my home team."

Fucking whiny ass titty-babies.

"Waaaaah the media doesn't all suck Rupert Murdock's cock."

Get over it already. You fuckers don't want a neutral media, you want a media in which every story is heavily stilted to fit the conservative agenda.

If you had any guts or honesty you would admit it. You are no better than Putin in that regard.

Oh, wait, one of you already did admit it:


“Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of ‘liberal bias’ in the media were part of ‘a strategy’ (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: ‘If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is “work the refs.” Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time.’”

[RandomGuy]

I can think of few things that are more un-American than trying to squelch free speech.

This kind of moral hypocrisy in claiming to want to uphold "American values" while at the same time doing your damnest to deny others of their ability to speak their minds really turns me off to the whole notion of conservatism.

[RandomGuy]

Funny thing, you are so busy wanting to make smart
remarks, but I still haven't see any of your remarks on
Obama's politics. Cat got your tongue?

Pfft.

Why would I waste a second trying to do so, when your mind was made up about the man the second you saw the "D" behind his name?

Seriously, do you think anyone here doesn't know that?

[xrayzebra]

Pfft.

Why would I waste a second trying to do so, when your mind was made up about the man the second you saw the "D" behind his name?

Seriously, do you think anyone here doesn't know that?


I wasn't aware that I was the only one posting on this
forum. You don't want to defend your guy or promote him
so others will know what a great guy he is. Or is it
that you cant really defend/promote him because he
hasn't really proposed anything yet except change.
And bitch if someone questions him about anything.


I make no bones about disliking dimm-o-craps. What
have they done for the country lately. Zip.

[clambake]

the only way to find out the truth about a black man is to ask a wornout old whiteguy relic thats buried in texas.

[xrayzebra]

the only way to find out the truth about a black man is to ask a wornout old whiteguy relic thats buried in texas.


Spambake, why do you keep bring up race? Typical
lib dimm-0-crap. Have to separate people by type.

[clambake]

Spambake, why do you keep bring up race? Typical
lib dimm-0-crap. Have to separate people by type.
because you are the ultimate of common and simple.

there's no mystery here, ray.

[xrayzebra]

because you are the ultimate of common and simple.

there's no mystery here, ray.

Oh, your jealous! Spambake

[Mr. Peabody]

Start with national security, since the president’s most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons;

Great article. Let's misrepresent someone's positions and then attack the straw man. Why do we read this shit? It's negativity for the sake of negativity.

[fyatuk]

Great article. Let's misrepresent someone's positions and then attack the straw man. Why do we read this shit? It's negativity for the sake of negativity.

Same reasons we read Bush bashing articles, and Kerry getting swiftboated, and about Hilary being a lying, angry bitch.

The masses love dirt, and the uglier it sounds, the more we want to know.

[RandomGuy]

I wasn't aware that I was the only one posting on this
forum.

That is actually a good point. Perhaps I shall indeed do that.



You don't want to defend your guy or promote him
so others will know what a great guy he is. Or is it
that you cant really defend/promote him because he
hasn't really proposed anything yet except change.
And bitch if someone questions him about anything.


I make no bones about disliking dimm-o-craps. What
have they done for the country lately. Zip.

(shrugs)

I have looked over the Obama, McCain, and Clinton websites.

All of them offer roughly similar levels of detail as to what the respective candidate proposes.

I don't mind at all if anyone questions him about anything. I will even give honest answers when I disagree with the guy.

Personally, the more I find out about what he specifically thinks and does, the better I like him.

The best example is the whole Reverend Wright thing.

He could have simply thrown the guy to the wolves and completely disavowed him, just because it was politically convenient and advantageous to do so, but he didn't.

[JoeChalupa]

xrayzebra is just in love with his repugnant party and will never see anything in any other way but his own. He'll bitch and complain about everything a democrat does but will over look anything a repugnant will do.
He is what he is. I respect his opinions and while he sometimes makes some valid points his inability to see things from another point of view is very discouraging.

[xrayzebra]

That is actually a good point. Perhaps I shall indeed do that.




(shrugs)

I have looked over the Obama, McCain, and Clinton websites.

All of them offer roughly similar levels of detail as to what the respective candidate proposes.

I don't mind at all if anyone questions him about anything. I will even give honest answers when I disagree with the guy.

Personally, the more I find out about what he specifically thinks and does, the better I like him.

The best example is the whole Reverend Wright thing.

He could have simply thrown the guy to the wolves and completely disavowed him, just because it was politically convenient and advantageous to do so, but he didn't.

Yeah, isn't he great. Instead he threw his White
Grandmother under the bus. The one who raised him
and loved him. (Obama's own words). Of course she
is just a typical white woman.

[xrayzebra]

xrayzebra is just in love with his repugnant party and will never see anything in any other way but his own. He'll bitch and complain about everything a democrat does but will over look anything a repugnant will do.
He is what he is. I respect his opinions and while he sometimes makes some valid points his inability to see things from another point of view is very discouraging.

Wrong as usual Joe. I am not a Republican, in fact I am
not really crazy about McCain. I am a conservative. I will
vote for McCain because he is the best of the three.

You are correct in one way. I see everything from
Conservative point of view. You may not agree with this.
But I have one thing in my favor, which some seemed to
resent. Experience. I have seen how much progressives,
Liberals and the diversity of the dimm-o-crap party have
hurt people and the country. Diversity was not what
made this country. Being part of the country, being
Americans, is what made the country. Heritage has
enriched it but it didn't make it. People who wanted to
be part of this country is what made it. And made them
proud to be American. Not some hyphenated group.

[possessed]

xrayzebra is just in love with his repugnant party and will never see anything in any other way but his own. He'll bitch and complain about everything a democrat does but will over look anything a repugnant will do.
He is what he is. I respect his opinions and while he sometimes makes some valid points his inability to see things from another point of view is very discouraging.
I like how partisan Democrats can call out partisan Republicans. Funny how the rules are always different for liberal twinks.

[JoeChalupa]

I like how partisan Democrats can call out partisan Republicans. Funny how the rules are always different for liberal twinks.

The rules are NOT different. I've called out many democrats time and time again. And if you don't think partisan republicans don't call out democrats you haven't been around this board much. :rolleyes

[BonnerDynasty]

Spambake, why do you keep bring up race? Typical
lib dimm-0-crap. Have to separate people by type.

They love to instill class envy and racism into the country to keep people dreaming that the dims care about them while making them feel like victims.

[PEP]

the only way to find out the truth about a black man is to ask a wornout old whiteguy relic thats buried in texas.
LBJ?

[xrayzebra]

as opposed to republicans, who only care about upper-class people
(unless you're a "compassionate conservative")


Wrong as usual. Who passed the civil rights bill. Who
opposed the civil rights bill. Who freed the slaves. Who
passed tax cuts for all citizens. Man, you are wrong as
two 'left' feet.

[Wild Cobra]

They love to instill class envy and racism into the country to keep people dreaming that the dims care about them while making them feel like victims.
Yep, the democrats are racists on top of that. They believe the black people cannot make it by themselves and need affirmative help. By definition, those who believe that way are racists because they believe the blacks are not as good as whites!

[Wild Cobra]

as opposed to republicans, who only care about upper-class people
(unless you're a "compassionate conservative")
If the political right is more concerned about money than the political left, then why are most of the richest politicians democrats?

Ever look up the stats?

I see you are just another spoon fed lemming. You don't think for yourself, you just believe the leftist pundits.

[BradLohaus]

Obama is bringing hope to Harvard educated lawyers everywhere.

[George Gervin's Afro]

They love to instill class envy and racism into the country to keep people dreaming that the dims care about them while making them feel like victims.


Yeah I know we have the gall to point out that the gap between the rich and poor has widened since Bush was in office.. .what is it with conservatives and facts they don't like.. .they blame libs. :rolleyes

[George Gervin's Afro]

If the political right is more concerned about money than the political left, then why are most of the richest politicians democrats?

Ever look up the stats?

I see you are just another spoon fed lemming. You don't think for yourself, you just believe the leftist pundits.


SO the dems who are super rich want the rich to pay more in taxes?.. well that's putting your money where your mouth is am i correct? how noble of the rich dems to want to help their fellow man.. thanks WC for pointing that out.,.

[jochhejaam]

Personally, the more I find out about what he specifically thinks and does, the better I like him.

The best example is the whole Reverend Wright thing.

He could have simply thrown the guy to the wolves and completely disavowed him, just because it was politically convenient and advantageous to do so, but he didn't.
Easily impressed, eh?
In light of the fact that he had been under his pastorship for 20 years, there was nothing notable about the way he handled it. A measured response, especially from one seeking the White House, was to be expected.
Anything less would have branded him as being hypocritical.

[ChumpDumper]

There was nothing notable about the pastor "issue" in the first place.

[Spurminator]

Yes, let's talk about his politics, and we can start by posting a non-specific rant by a partisan pundit. This is what election year dialogue has become. Awesome.

[Spurminator]

Conservatives trained on daily diets of Fox News don't even know why they dislike Obama. You have plenty of reasons to, but you spend so much time on bullshit that you fail miserably at putting forth an argument that might actually make an impression on undecideds and moderates who haven't already made up their minds based on the (R) or (D) next to the candidates' names.

[xrayzebra]

you fail miserably at putting forth an argument that might actually make an impression on undecideds and moderates who haven't already made up their minds based on the (R) or (D) next to the candidates' names.

Do we have any of the people on this forum. I don't
recall anyone here who is undecided or moderate in any
way, shape, form or fashion......
:lol

[Don Quixote]

Conservatives trained on daily diets of Fox News don't even know why they dislike Obama. You have plenty of reasons to, but you spend so much time on bullplop.

Hmm. Let's unpack this. First, I probably don't need to point out problems with the whole FoxNews=conservative thing again. Even if FNC is conservative, that does not mean that only right-wingers watch it, or that watching it will make you conservative.

Second, conservatives do have good reason to distrust Obama, although not dislike him. I don't have anything personal against the man. But he has gone on record as being (again, I speak very generally, this is a msg board) (a) dovish on foreign policy, (b) liberal on economic and "size-of-government" issues (raise taxes, more entitlements), (c) liberal on family issues (pro-abortion, pro-gay-"marriage"), and (d) not sufficiently vigilant on securing the border.

Put that together with his well-documented past associations with radical leftists, and conservatives can make a pretty decent case for rejecting an Obama presidency.

Notice I didn't say anything about his his religion, or his middle name. Irrelevant.

[Nbadan]

Hmm. Let's unpack this. First, I probably don't need to point out problems with the whole FoxNews=conservative thing again. Even if FNC is conservative, that does not mean that only right-wingers watch it, or that watching it will make you conservative.

Faux News is like a bad train wreck, you know it's going to be gristly, but sometimes you can't help but look....

[Purple & Gold]

Yet he claims to be a man of change, what
change? More liberalism, more big government.

I thought Repubs were for big government?? :wtf

[JoeChalupa]

Conservatives are against big spending and government unless it is one of their own in the White House.

[101A]

Conservatives are against big spending and government unless it is one of their own in the White House.NO. Big govt. sucks; regardless of who is behind it.

[Mr. Peabody]

Yes, let's talk about his politics, and we can start by posting a non-specific rant by a partisan pundit. This is what election year dialogue has become. Awesome.

+1

[xrayzebra]

Conservatives are against big spending and government unless it is one of their own in the White House.

Depends on what they spend it on. Defense, okay.
Security of the country, okay. BS programs. Wrong.

Oh, and Bush is no Conservative. He is a RINO. Just
like McCain will be. But both Bush and McCain make
Obama and Hillary look like third rate politicians, which
they are.

[Spurminator]

Hmm. Let's unpack this. First, I probably don't need to point out problems with the whole FoxNews=conservative thing again. Even if FNC is conservative, that does not mean that only right-wingers watch it, or that watching it will make you conservative.

I wasn't intending to make a statement tying Fox News with Conservatives, that's another discussion altogether. Fox News is simply representative of the political coverage that appeals more to this country's obsession with celebrity and scandal than its interest in real issues of policy. Most mainstream political news coverage is just a step up from TMZ.


Second, conservatives do have good reason to distrust Obama, although not dislike him. I don't have anything personal against the man. But he has gone on record as being (again, I speak very generally, this is a msg board) (a) dovish on foreign policy, (b) liberal on economic and "size-of-government" issues (raise taxes, more entitlements), (c) liberal on family issues (pro-abortion, pro-gay-"marriage"), and (d) not sufficiently vigilant on securing the border.

Put that together with his well-documented past associations with radical leftists, and conservatives can make a pretty decent case for rejecting an Obama presidency.

Notice I didn't say anything about his his religion, or his middle name. Irrelevant.

Exactly. But we rarely debate these points. We spend more time talking about his Pledge of Allegience etiquette, his smoking habits, his pastors, his race, etc. Given that most moderates probably don't care about any of these things, just like we didn't care about whether or not GW Bush skipped out of National Guard service in 1971, it would be better for his opponents to avoid the sensationalist crap and challenge his policies.

[smeagol]

Obama should say on every speach, at least twice, that he is proud of his country.

Otherwise, he does not get my vote!

[smeagol]

Depends on what they spend it on. Defense, okay.
Security of the country, okay

Yes!

More weapons and money to the Homeland Security Agency!

[xrayzebra]

Conservatives are against big spending and government unless it is one of their own in the White House.

Joe, here is what Dr. Walter Williams has to say about
the Constitution, government spending and our Presidential
candidates. It is a good column and kinda says it all, much
better than I could or can. Please note, not all Presidents
were for public welfare.




Political Loathsomeness
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Do any of the prospective nominees of either party deserve respect from the American people? The answer partially depends on your knowledge, values and respect for the U.S Constitution.

When either Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain take office, they are going to place their hand on the Bible and take the oath, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It will be a phony affirmation, but what's worse is that the chief justice of the United States, who administers the oath, and the average American will believe the new president.

You say, "Hey, Williams, that's a pretty tall charge! Explain yourself." There's a measure introduced in every Congress since 1995, by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., called The Enumerated Powers Act that would require that all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted.

The Enumerated Powers Act currently has 44 co-sponsors in the House. In the Senate, it has never had a single co-sponsor, and that's a Senate that includes our three presidential aspirants. The question one might ask is why would Sens. Obama, Clinton and McCain have a distaste for, and fail to support, a measure binding them to what the Constitution actually permits?

There's a two-part answer to that question. First, few congressmen, including our presidential aspirants, have the integrity, decency and courage to be bound by the Constitution, but more important is that congressmen and presidents simply reflect the constitutional ignorance or contempt held by the American people.

Most of what Congress is constitutionally authorized to spend for is listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and includes: coining money, establish Post Offices, to support Armies and a few other activities. Today's federal budget is over $3 trillion dollars. I challenge anyone to find specific constitutional authority for at least $2 trillion of it. That includes Social Security, Medicare, farm and business handouts, education, prescription drugs and a host of other federal expenditures. Americans who have become accustomed to living at the expense of another American would not want Congress to obey the Constitution, especially if it left out their favorite handout.

A harebrained politician or lawyer might tell us that the Constitution's general welfare clause authorizes those expenditures. Here's what James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Later, Madison added, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

Thomas Jefferson explained, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

At one time there were presidents who respected the Constitution. Grover Cleveland vetoed hundreds of spending measures during his two-term presidency, often saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." Then there was Franklin Pierce who said, after vetoing an appropriation to assist the mentally ill, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding, "To approve such spending would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

We should consider ending the charade and get rid of our 200-year-plus presidential oath of office and replace it with: I accept the office of president.



Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

Be the first to read Walter Williams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate


Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights
Reserved.


===================

Joe what do you think of the bill introduced about
always including a statement U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted.

Boy-o-boy would that put a crimp in their style....huh?

[BonnerDynasty]

I thought Repubs were for big government?? :wtf

nah, just the corrupt soulless ones.

[101A]

Joe, here is what Dr. Walter Williams has to say about
the Constitution, government spending and our Presidential
candidates. It is a good column and kinda says it all, much
better than I could or can. Please note, not all Presidents
were for public welfare.




Political Loathsomeness
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Do any of the prospective nominees of either party deserve respect from the American people? The answer partially depends on your knowledge, values and respect for the U.S Constitution.

When either Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain take office, they are going to place their hand on the Bible and take the oath, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It will be a phony affirmation, but what's worse is that the chief justice of the United States, who administers the oath, and the average American will believe the new president.

You say, "Hey, Williams, that's a pretty tall charge! Explain yourself." There's a measure introduced in every Congress since 1995, by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., called The Enumerated Powers Act that would require that all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted.

The Enumerated Powers Act currently has 44 co-sponsors in the House. In the Senate, it has never had a single co-sponsor, and that's a Senate that includes our three presidential aspirants. The question one might ask is why would Sens. Obama, Clinton and McCain have a distaste for, and fail to support, a measure binding them to what the Constitution actually permits?

There's a two-part answer to that question. First, few congressmen, including our presidential aspirants, have the integrity, decency and courage to be bound by the Constitution, but more important is that congressmen and presidents simply reflect the constitutional ignorance or contempt held by the American people.

Most of what Congress is constitutionally authorized to spend for is listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and includes: coining money, establish Post Offices, to support Armies and a few other activities. Today's federal budget is over $3 trillion dollars. I challenge anyone to find specific constitutional authority for at least $2 trillion of it. That includes Social Security, Medicare, farm and business handouts, education, prescription drugs and a host of other federal expenditures. Americans who have become accustomed to living at the expense of another American would not want Congress to obey the Constitution, especially if it left out their favorite handout.

A harebrained politician or lawyer might tell us that the Constitution's general welfare clause authorizes those expenditures. Here's what James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Later, Madison added, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

Thomas Jefferson explained, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

At one time there were presidents who respected the Constitution. Grover Cleveland vetoed hundreds of spending measures during his two-term presidency, often saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." Then there was Franklin Pierce who said, after vetoing an appropriation to assist the mentally ill, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding, "To approve such spending would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

We should consider ending the charade and get rid of our 200-year-plus presidential oath of office and replace it with: I accept the office of president.



Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

Be the first to read Walter Williams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate


Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights
Reserved.


===================

Joe what do you think of the bill introduced about
always including a statement U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted.

Boy-o-boy would that put a crimp in their style....huh?
Good Read.

Enlightening.

[Yonivore]

Walter's the man.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, the irony.

[101A]

Oh, the irony.???

[ChumpDumper]

Exactly, you don't even see it.

[101A]

Exactly, you don't even see it.I can assume that you are suggesting there are non-constitutional expenditures that we conservative wholeheartedly support. Please enumerate those.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope. Not what I'm thinking.

[JoeChalupa]

Good Read.

Enlightening.

Yes, it was a good read.